Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 33 references

How quantum selection rules influence the magneto-optical effects of driven, ultrafast magnetization dynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that the transient TMOKE signal at the M edge of Ni and Co is a nontrivial function of probe energy, so a decrease in the measured signal does not necessarily mean a decrease in magnetization.

desk verdict A useful, mostly sound ab initio demonstration that M-edge TR-TMOKE responses in Ni and Co are strongly probe-energy dependent, though the leap from Re eps_xy to the actual measured asymmetry needs closure. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.05433 v3 pith:ZQP5ZYCH submitted 2025-01-09 cond-mat.mtrl-sci

Mohamed F. Elhanoty , Olle Eriksson , Chin Shen Ong , Oscar Gr{aa}näs This is my paper · ORCID
classification cond-mat.mtrl-sci
keywords ultrafastmagnetizationdynamicsmagneto-opticalKerreffecttransverseMOKEquantumselectionrulesM-edgespectroscopy3pcorestatestime-dependentdensityfunctionaltheorydielectrictensor
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that the transient magneto-optical signal measured in pump-probe experiments—the time-resolved transverse magneto-optical Kerr effect, TR-TMOKE—at the $3p$ M edge of magnetic transition metals is not a direct readout of the instantaneous magnetization. Instead, the response is built from partial contributions of individual $m_j$ states of the $3p_{3/2}$ and $3p_{1/2}$ core manifolds, whose superposition can produce sign changes and oscillations at specific probe energies even while the magnetization simply decreases. Using ab initio time-dependent density functional theory for hcp Co and fcc Ni, the authors show that $\Delta \Re \epsilon_{xy}$ in the overlapping M$_3$/M$_2$ region varies dramatically with probe energy and does not track the overall demagnetization. The practical consequence is that TR-TMOKE demagnetization claims are trustworthy only when the probe energy and the matrix elements at that energy are specified.

What carries the argument

The central object is the $m_j$-resolved decomposition of the real part of the off-diagonal dielectric tensor, $\Re \epsilon_{xy}$, at the M$_3$ and M$_2$ absorption edges. The authors disentangle the total static and 35 fs transient signals into contributions from each $|3p_{3/2}, m_j\rangle$ state ($m_j = -3/2, -1/2, 1/2, 3/2$) and each $|3p_{1/2}, m_j\rangle$ state ($m_j = -1/2, 1/2$), using dipole selection rules and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients to connect core states to the spin character of available conduction states. This decomposition shows that the M$_3$ edge receives a large negative $m_j = -3/2$ contribution and a smaller positive $m_j = -1/2$ contribution, the M$_2$ edge receives a large positive $m_j = -1/2$ and a smaller negative $m_j = 1/2$ contribution, and the superposition of all channels in the overlap region is what makes the transient response a nontrivial function of probe energy.

What would settle it

A time-resolved scan of the TMOKE asymmetry (or of $\Re \epsilon_{xy}$) across the full M$_3$ and M$_2$ energy range in Ni or Co under one fixed pump would falsify the central claim if $\Delta \Re \epsilon_{xy}$ had the same sign at every probe energy, or if the full energy dependence could be reproduced from ground-state rigid-band populations without including the transient $m_j$-resolved matrix elements.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the energy-dependent transient response of the off-diagonal dielectric tensor component $\Re \epsilon_{xy}$ at the M edge is governed by the superposition of partial contributions from the individual $m_j$ states of the $3p_{3/2}$ (M$_3$) and $3p_{1/2}$ (M$_2$) manifolds. Each $m_j$ channel has its own sign and magnitude, fixed by dipole selection rules and Clebsch-Gordan coefficients, and the pump laser modifies these channels differently. In the energy range where M$_3$ and M$_2$ overlap, the constituent changes can cancel or add so that $\Delta \Re \epsilon_{xy}$ oscillates and changes sign in a way that does not directly relate to the overall decrease in magnetization. The authors therefore conclude that interpreting a TMOKE asymmetry change solely as a change in magnetization is invalid unless the probe energy is specified.

Load-bearing premise

The explanation assumes the 3p core states retain their fixed spin and angular-momentum character, with the same mixture of spin-up and spin-down components, while the pump laser is active; if the pump distorts or mixes those core levels, the sign-cancellation picture would not describe the total response.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A single TR-TMOKE measurement at one probe energy cannot by itself establish demagnetization or enhancement in Ni and Co; the sign of the measured asymmetry change depends on energy.
  • Measurements in the M$_3$/M$_2$ overlap region (roughly 65--68 eV for Ni and 60--63 eV for Co) are the most prone to artifacts and should be interpreted with the $m_j$-resolved dielectric response.
  • Experiments should report or scan multiple probe energies, especially at the M$_3$ edge, and pair measurements with theory that resolves individual core-state contributions.
  • For magnetic alloys, where optical intersite spin transfer is expected, the probe-energy dependence complicates attribution of asymmetry changes to intersite spin transfer.
  • The overlap between M$_3$ and M$_2$ also means ground-state XMCD sum rules cannot be applied directly at the M edge of these metals.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A direct experimental check would be to probe the same pump-driven Ni or Co sample at two energies on opposite sides of the M$_3$/M$_2$ crossing and look for opposite signs in $\Delta \Re \epsilon_{xy}$; the paper's mechanism predicts such a sign flip.
  • The same $m_j$-decomposition logic should apply to other $3d$ elements and alloys with overlapping $3p$ edges; extending it to Fe or permalloy would show whether the energy-dependent artifacts are generic.
  • The paper's use of full transient Kohn-Sham states, rather than ground-state rigid bands, implies that population-only models may miss the main source of the energy dependence; a population-only calculation would give a different and testable $\Delta \Re \epsilon_{xy}$ line shape.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. Elhanoty et al. report ab initio time-dependent density functional theory (TDDFT) calculations of the transient off-diagonal dielectric tensor component Re ε_xy at the M2,3 edges of fcc Ni and hcp Co, evaluated 35 fs after a 1.55 eV pump pulse. They decompose the equilibrium and transient M3 and M2 responses by the magnetic quantum number mj of the 3p3/2 and 3p1/2 core states and find that the sign and magnitude of ΔRe ε_xy vary strongly with probe energy, especially in the M3/M2 overlap region. The central claim is that the sign of a TR-TMOKE asymmetry change does not directly track the magnetization change, so the probe energy and the relevant matrix elements must be specified before interpreting ultrafast magnetization measurements.

Significance. The main strength is that the central spectral quantity, ΔRe ε_xy, is a direct output of a time-dependent linear-response calculation; the strong energy dependence and sign changes in Fig. 3 are not produced by fitting, and the mj decomposition is a post-hoc quantum-mechanical analysis of that output. If the conclusions hold, the paper provides a concrete and physically plausible mechanism—selection rules combined with M3/M2 overlap—for probe-energy-dependent TR-TMOKE responses, and it would strengthen the case for multi-energy probing in ultrafast magnetism experiments. However, the paper stops at Re ε_xy and does not evaluate the actual measured TMOKE asymmetry, so the experimental implications are not yet fully demonstrated.

major comments (3)
  1. [SM, 'Transverse MOKE' (Eqs. S06–S07) and main Eq. (1)] The measured TMOKE magnetic asymmetry A = (I+ − I−)/(I+ + I−) is not determined by Re ε_xy alone: in Eqs. (S06)–(S07), the coefficients I0 and Im depend on the complex, transient refractive index n(ω,t), and the term I_m ε_xy brings the full complex ε_xy into the intensity. The manuscript computes only Re ε_xy at 35 fs and never evaluates A, n, or the Fresnel coefficients for the pumped state. The abstract's and conclusions' claim that TR-TMOKE signals can rise or fall independently of the magnetization change therefore goes beyond the computed quantity. The authors should either compute the transient A (or at least the transient Fresnel factors) or explicitly restrict the central claim to ΔRe ε_xy and flag the step from ΔRe ε_xy to the measured asymmetry as an untested extrapolation.
  2. [SM, 'Spin Projections of 3p Core States'; Figs. 2 and 4] The selection-rule explanation assumes that the 3p core states remain pure |j,mj⟩ states with the same Clebsch–Gordan spin weights at 35 fs as in the ground state; however, Fig. S1 shows only ground-state spin projections. Since the pump modifies occupations and orbitals, the decomposition of the transient response into fixed mj channels may misattribute spectral weight if the transient core spinors are altered. The authors should verify from the time evolution that the core-state spin projections are unchanged at 35 fs, or quantify the uncertainty this assumption introduces in the mj-resolved Δε_xy of Figs. 3 and 4.
  3. [Fig. 3; Refs. [15–17]] The paper presents only a single nonequilibrium snapshot at t = 35 fs and does not directly compare any computed quantity with the experimental asymmetry traces of Refs. [15–17]. A single snapshot is sufficient to demonstrate energy-dependent sign changes at that instant, but it is not sufficient to resolve discrepancies that are defined by temporal traces over the first 100 fs. The authors should either add a time series of ΔRe ε_xy or soften the claim that these experimental discrepancies are addressed by the present calculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Main text, numerical details section (SM)] The phrase 'the the full potential ELK code' contains a duplicated article and should be corrected.
  2. [SM, Eq. (S07)] The symbol 'Im' is used both as a coefficient (I_m) and resembles the imaginary-part operator; using an explicit subscript, e.g. I_m, in Eqs. (S06)–(S07) and in the surrounding text would remove a real ambiguity.
  3. [Introduction, Refs. [15–17]] The three Ni experiments are described as reporting 'starkly different responses,' but the manuscript does not list their probe energies or other experimental conditions; a brief table or sentence specifying the energy ranges would make the claimed discrepancy concrete and easier to compare with Fig. 3.
  4. [Fig. 1 caption] The caption states that 'the energy scale is not the same for the valence levels and the core levels'; this is helpful, but the figure would be clearer if the two energy axes were labeled with their respective scales.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central energy-dependent transient Re eps_xy is a direct TDDFT output, and the mj decomposition is a post-hoc analysis rather than a fitted input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that the transient off-diagonal dielectric response at the M edge is a nontrivial, energy-dependent superposition of mj-resolved contributions, so that the sign of a TR-TMOKE change need not track the magnetization change. This is established by computing Re eps_xy from the time-dependent Kohn-Sham response (Eqs. S02-S05) at 35 fs, with no free parameter fitted to the target result; the magnetization decrease is likewise a TDDFT output. The mj decomposition is a post-hoc projection onto standard Clebsch-Gordan channels, not an input that forces the sign structure. The self-citations, including SM Refs. [3,4] for the transient linear-response scheme and Ref. [8] for a Heusler experiment, are method or motivation citations; the conclusion is not obtained by assuming that conclusion through those references. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, and no uniqueness theorem is imported. The skeptic's concern that the actual TMOKE asymmetry A, which depends on the refractive index and Fresnel factors (Eqs. S06-S07), is not directly computed is a limitation of the experimental link, not a circularity: the paper explicitly restricts its discussion to Re eps_xy and does not claim to have evaluated A for the transient state. The central physics therefore has independent content beyond its inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No numerical constants are fitted to experimental data anywhere in the paper; the calculation is a forward ab initio run. The free parameters listed are the fixed pump-pulse and snapshot choices, which are experimental inputs rather than fitted values. The main intellectual inputs from outside the calculation are the standard quantum-mechanical selection-rule machinery, the ALSDA approximation, and the assumption that Re eps_xy alone is a faithful proxy for the TMOKE asymmetry. No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (4)
  • Pump fluence = 12 mJ/cm^2
    Chosen as a typical experimental value (SM Numerical Details); affects the magnitude of magnetization reduction (Co: 1.6 to 1.5 uB, Ni: 0.61 to 0.58 uB) and the resulting Delta Re eps_xy; no sensitivity analysis is given.
  • Pump pulse FWHM duration = 35 fs
    Chosen to match typical experiments; the system is still evolving at this time, and the response at other times may differ.
  • Pump carrier energy = 1.55 eV (800 nm)
    Standard experimental pump wavelength; selected by hand, not derived.
  • Snapshot time = 35 fs
    The transient linear response is evaluated only at t = 35 fs after pulse onset; the paper does not show a time series, so the energy-dependent dynamics claims rest on this single time point.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The 3p core states in fcc Ni and hcp Co remain atomic-like jj-coupled states with well-defined j and mj, with fixed Clebsch-Gordan weights, during and after the pump excitation.
    Invoked implicitly in the mj-resolved decomposition of M3 and M2 edges (Fig. 2, main text) and explicitly in the SM 'Spin Projections of 3p Core States'; if core-level mixing occurs, the decomposition would not faithfully represent the total response.
  • domain assumption The adiabatic local spin-density approximation (ALSDA) for the exchange-correlation potential and kernel accurately describes the transient electronic structure and the core-valence response at 35 fs.
    Used in the TDKS evolution (Eq. S02) and Dyson equation (Eq. S04) in the SM; this is the standard method of the ELK implementation but its accuracy for core-level transient response is not benchmarked in the paper.
  • domain assumption The sign and energy dependence of Re eps_xy, computed alone, is representative of the experimental TR-TMOKE asymmetry; the energy dependence of the Fresnel denominator in Eq. (1) does not alter the sign conclusions.
    The paper states 'To simplify our discussion... we focus on the off-diagonal component of the dielectric tensor, eps_xy, which is independent of the angle of incidence or transmission'; no calculation of the full expression in Eq. (1) is provided.
  • domain assumption The dipole approximation for the pump field is valid, and the probe can be treated in the linear response limit.
    Stated in the SM: 'the dipole approximation for the vector potential Aext(t) of the pump laser is usually used for wavelengths much larger than the lattice constant'; the probe linear response is the entire approach of Eqs. S03-S05.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of How quantum selection rules influence the magneto-optical effects of driven, ultrafast magnetization dynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZQP5ZYCH

@misc{pith2026250105433,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: How quantum selection rules influence the magneto-optical effects of driven, ultrafast magnetization dynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZQP5ZYCH}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.05433}
}
read the original abstract

Ultrafast magnetization dynamics driven by ultrashort pump lasers is typically explained by changes in electronic populations and scattering pathways of excited conduction electrons. This conventional approach overlooks the fundamental role of quantum mechanical selection rules, governing transitions from core states to the conduction band, that forms the key method of the probing step in these experiments. By employing fully ab initio time-dependent density functional theory, we reveal that these selection rules profoundly influence the interpretation of ultrafast spin dynamics at specific probe energies. Our analysis for hcp Co and fcc Ni at the M edge demonstrates that the transient dynamics, as revealed in pump-probe experiments, arise from a complex interplay of optical excitations of the M shell. Taking into account the selection rules and conduction electron spin flips, this leads to highly energy-dependent dynamics. These findings address longstanding discrepancies in experimental TMOKE measurements and show that only through meticulous consideration of matrix elements at the probe stage, can one ensure that magnetization dynamics is revealed in its true nature, instead of being muddled by artifacts arising from the choice of probe energy.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.05433 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. (a) Schematic diagram illustrating the pump and probe [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Decomposition of the total M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4. Separation of contributions to the dielectric tensor at the M [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

33 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [17]

    Elec- tron thermalization and relaxation in laser-heated nickel by few-femtosecond core-level transient absorption spectroscopy,

    H.-T. Chang, A. Guggenmos, S. K. Cushing, Y . Cui, N. U. Din, S. R. Acharya, I. J. P. Molesky, U. Kleineberg, V . Turkowski, T. S. Rahman, D. M. Neumark, and S. R. Leone, “Elec- tron thermalization and relaxation in laser-heated nickel by few-femtosecond core-level transient absorption spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. B 103, 064305 (2021)

    work page 2021

  2. [1]

    Thus, they are more pronounced to relativistic effects, particularly spin- orbit coupling (SOC), which couples their orbital (L) and spin (S) angular momenta

    Core electrons experience stronger Coulomb attraction and are more localized close to the nucleus of the atom. Thus, they are more pronounced to relativistic effects, particularly spin- orbit coupling (SOC), which couples their orbital (L) and spin (S) angular momenta. This results in observable spin-orbit splitting between M 3 (3p3/2) and M 2 (3p1/2) edg...

    work page 2019

  3. [2]

    Current status and outlook of magnetic data storage devices,

    B. Bhushan, “Current status and outlook of magnetic data storage devices,” Microsystem Technologies 29, 1529–1546 (2023)

    work page 2023

  4. [3]

    Opportunities and challenges for spintronics in the microelectronics industry,

    B. Dieny, I. L. Prejbeanu, K. Garello, P. Gambardella, P. Freitas, R. Lehndorff, W. Raberg, U. Ebels, S. O. Demokritov, J. Ak- erman, et al., “Opportunities and challenges for spintronics in the microelectronics industry,” Nature Electronics 3, 446–459 (2020)

    work page 2020

  5. [4]

    Review on spintronics: Principles and device applications,

    A. Hirohata, K. Yamada, Y . Nakatani, I.-L. Prejbeanu, B. Di´eny, P. Pirro, and B. Hillebrands, “Review on spintronics: Principles and device applications,” Journal of Magnetism and Magnetic Materials 509, 166711 (2020)

    work page 2020

  6. [5]

    High-repetition-rate at- tosecond extreme ultraviolet beamlines at eli alps for study- ing ultrafast phenomena,

    M. Shirozhan, S. Mondal, T. Gr ´osz, B. Nagyill ´es, B. Farkas, A. Nayak, N. Ahmed, I. Dey, S. C. D. Marco, K. Nelissen, M. Kiss, L. G. Oldal, T. Csizmadia, Z. Filus, M. D. Marco, S. Madas, M. U. Kahaly, D. Charalambidis, P. Tzallas, E. Appi, R. Weissenbilder, P. Eng-Johnsson, A. L’Huillier, Z. Diveki, B. Major, K. Varj ´u, and S. Kahaly, “High-repetition...

    2024

  7. [6]

    Ultrafast optical ma- nipulation of magnetic order,

    A. Kirilyuk, A. V . Kimel, and T. Rasing, “Ultrafast optical ma- nipulation of magnetic order,” Rev. Mod. Phys. 82, 2731–2784 (2010)

    work page 2010

  8. [7]

    Ultrafast optical manipulation of mag- netic order in ferromagnetic materials,

    C. Wang and Y . Liu, “Ultrafast optical manipulation of mag- netic order in ferromagnetic materials,” Nano Convergence 7, 1–16 (2020)

    work page 2020

Show all 33 references
  1. [8]

    The 2022 magneto-optics roadmap,

    A. Kimel, A. Zvezdin, S. Sharma, S. Shallcross, N. de Sousa, A. Garc ´ıa-Mart´ın, G. Salvan, J. Hamrle, O. Stejskal, J. Mc- Cord, S. Tacchi, G. Carlotti, P. Gambardella, G. Salis, M. M¨unzenberg, M. Schultze, V . Temnov, I. V . Bychkov, L. N. Kotov, N. Maccaferri, D. Ignatyeva...

    2022

  2. [10]

    Attosecond state-resolved carrier motion in quantum mate- rials probed by soft x-ray XANES,

    B. Buades, A. Pic ´on, E. Berger, I. Le ´on, N. Di Palo, S. L. Cousin, C. Cocchi, E. Pellegrin, J. H. Martin, S. Ma ˜nas- Valero, E. Coronado, T. Danz, C. Draxl, M. Uemoto, K. Ya- bana, M. Schultze, S. Wall, M. Z ¨urch, and J. Biegert, “Attosecond state-resolved carrier motion...

    2021 doi

  3. [11]

    Ul- trafast demagnetization dynamics at the m edges of magnetic elements observed using a tabletop high-harmonic soft x-ray source,

    C. La-O-V orakiat, M. Siemens, M. M. Murnane, H. C. Kapteyn, S. Mathias, M. Aeschlimann, P. Grychtol, R. Adam, C. M. Schneider, J. M. Shaw, H. Nembach, and T. J. Silva, “Ul- trafast demagnetization dynamics at the m edges of magnetic elements observed using a tabletop high-har...

    2009

  4. [12]

    Laser-induced ultrafast demagnetization in the presence of a nanoscale magnetic domain network,

    B. V odungbo, J. Gautier, G. Lambert, A. B. Sardinha, M. Lozano, S. Sebban, M. Ducousso, W. Boutu, K. Li, B. Tudu, et al., “Laser-induced ultrafast demagnetization in the presence of a nanoscale magnetic domain network,” Nature communica- tions 3, 999 (2012)

    2012

  5. [13]

    Direct light–induced spin transfer between different el- ements in a spintronic heusler material via femtosecond laser excitation,

    P. Tengdin, C. Gentry, A. Blonsky, D. Zusin, M. Ger- rity, L. Hellbr ¨uck, M. Hofherr, J. Shaw, Y . Kvashnin, E. K. Delczeg-Czirjak, M. Arora, H. Nembach, T. J. Silva, S. Mathias, M. Aeschlimann, H. C. Kapteyn, D. Thonig, K. Koumpouras, O. Eriksson, and M. M. Murnane, “Direct ...

    2020 doi

  6. [14]

    De Groot and A

    F. De Groot and A. Kotani, Core level spectroscopy of solids (CRC press, 2008)

    2008

  7. [15]

    X-ray interactions: Pho- toabsorption, scattering, transmission, and reflection at e = 50- 30,000 ev, z = 1-92,

    B. Henke, E. Gullikson, and J. Davis, “X-ray interactions: Pho- toabsorption, scattering, transmission, and reflection at e = 50- 30,000 ev, z = 1-92,” Atomic Data and Nuclear Data Tables54, 181–342 (1993)

    1993

  8. [16]

    Time-resolved xuv absorption spec- troscopy and magnetic circular dichroism at the ni m2,3-edges,

    M. Hennes, B. R ¨osner, V . Chardonnet, G. S. Chiuzbaian, R. Delaunay, F. D ¨oring, V . A. Guzenko, M. Hehn, R. Jarrier, A. Kleibert, M. Lebugle, J. L ¨uning, G. Malinowski, A. Merhe, D. Naumenko, I. P. Nikolov, I. Lopez-Quintas, E. Pedersoli, T. Savchenko, B. Watts, M. Zangra...

    2021 doi

  9. [18]

    Unraveling femtosecond spin and charge dynamics with extreme ultraviolet transverse moke spectroscopy,

    H. Probst, C. M ¨oller, M. Schumacher, T. Brede, J. K. Dewhurst, M. Reutzel, D. Steil, S. Sharma, G. S. M. Jansen, and S. Math- ias, “Unraveling femtosecond spin and charge dynamics with extreme ultraviolet transverse moke spectroscopy,” Phys. Rev. Res. 6, 013107 (2024)

    2024

  10. [19]

    Ultrafast optically induced spin transfer in fer- romagnetic alloys,

    M. Hofherr, S. H ¨auser, J. K. Dewhurst, P. Tengdin, S. Sak- shath, H. T. Nembach, S. T. Weber, J. M. Shaw, T. J. Silva, H. C. Kapteyn, M. Cinchetti, B. Rethfeld, M. M. Murnane, D. Steil, B. Stadtm ¨uller, S. Sharma, M. Aeschlimann, and S. Mathias, “Ultrafast optically induced...

    2020 doi

  11. [20]

    Verification of ultrafast spin transfer effects in iron-nickel alloys,

    C. M ¨oller, H. Probst, G. M. Jansen, M. Schumacher, M. Brede, J. K. Dewhurst, M. Reutzel, D. Steil, S. Sharma, and S. Math- ias, “Verification of ultrafast spin transfer effects in iron-nickel alloys,” Communications Physics 7, 74 (2024)

    2024

  12. [21]

    Magneto-optical kerr spectra,

    P. Oppeneer, “Magneto-optical kerr spectra,” Handbook of Magnetic Materials 13, 229–422 (2001)

    2001

  13. [22]

    Relationship between magnetic 6 asymmetry and magnetization in ultrafast transverse magneto- optical kerr effect spectroscopy in the extreme ultraviolet spec- tral range,

    J. Richter, S. Jana, M. Hennecke, D. Schick, C. von Ko- rff Schmising, and S. Eisebitt, “Relationship between magnetic 6 asymmetry and magnetization in ultrafast transverse magneto- optical kerr effect spectroscopy in the extreme ultraviolet spec- tral range,” Phys. Rev. B109,...

    2024

  14. [24]

    A. R. Edmonds, Angular momentum in quantum mechanics, V ol. 4 (Princeton university press, 1996)

    1996

  15. [25]

    Laser-induced intersite spin transfer,

    J. K. Dewhurst, P. Elliott, S. Shallcross, E. K. Gross, and S. Sharma, “Laser-induced intersite spin transfer,” Nano letters 18, 1842–1848 (2018). 7 SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIALS Methods This supplementary document provides detailed insights into the methodologies and results suppor...

    2018

  16. [26]

    Runge and E

    E. Runge and E. K. U. Gross, Phys. Rev. Lett. 52, 997 (1984)

    1984

  17. [27]

    J. K. Dewhurst, F. Willems, P. Elliott, Q. Z. Li, C. v. K. Schmising, C. Str¨uber, D. W. Engel, S. Eisebitt, and S. Sharma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 077203 (2020)

    2020

  18. [28]

    S. A. Ryan, P. C. Johnsen, M. F. Elhanoty, A. Grafov, N. Li, A. Delin, A. Markou, E. Lesne, C. Felser, O. Eriksson, H. C. Kapteyn, O. Gr˚an¨as, and M. M. Murnane, Science Advances 9, eadi1428 (2023), https://www.science.org/doi/pdf/10.1126/sciadv.adi1428

    2023 doi

  19. [29]

    Lojewski, M

    T. Lojewski, M. F. Elhanoty, L. Le Guyader, O. Gr ˚an¨as, N. Agarwal, C. Boeglin, R. Carley, A. Castoldi, C. David, C. Deiter, et al., Materials Research Letters 11, 655 (2023)

    2023

  20. [30]

    Petersilka, U

    M. Petersilka, U. Gossmann, and E. Gross, Physical review letters 76, 1212 (1996)

    1996

  21. [31]

    The Elk Code,

    “The Elk Code,” http://elk.sourceforge.net/

  22. [32]

    Oppeneer, Handbook of Magnetic Materials 13, 229 (2001)

    P. Oppeneer, Handbook of Magnetic Materials 13, 229 (2001)

    2001

  23. [33]

    E. U. Condon and G. H. Shortley, The theory of atomic spectra (Cambridge University Press, 1935)

    1935

  24. [34]

    H. A. Bethe and E. E. Salpeter, Quantum mechanics of one-and two-electron atoms (Springer Science & Business Media, 2013)

    2013

  25. [35]

    B. H. Bransden and C. J. Joachain, Physics of atoms and molecules (Pearson Education India, 2003)

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.